Well, here we are. 23 posts in and not a single person has come to the defense of the Elementary Teachers' Federation or Idle No More on this issue.

And I think that SSP Canada is a good litmus test of whether a radical social policy will sink or float. I mean, you have a forum that's disproportionately made up of gay, educated and left-leaning urbanites. The forum is also made up of people who have a deeper than average knowledge of history and geography and a greater-than-average commitment to the communities they live in. We're not exactly polling people outside of a Tim Horton's drive thru here. If you can't find someone to rush to your defense on this forum, then you're probably doomed to fail.

It finally happened at #34, but I think the guy is actually a foreigner - should it even count? I mean, there's a chance he has no idea who this MacDonald guy is.

It would probably be useful to remind yourself that probably 90-95% of the people on this thread vote either NDP or Liberal.

Your position is becoming an increasingly lonely place.

In fairness, things change very quickly on social issues... in 1995, the thought of gay marriage would have existed for the most part on the fringes of society. Even within the NDP and Liberal parties it certainly wasn't mainstream.

A decade later it was legal, two decades later and no one really gives it any thought anymore, it's about as controversial as telecommunications regulations.

So it is possible that bkd and the people on my twitter feed constantly harping on 'settlers' could simply be out in front of public opinion on this issue.

It would probably be useful to remind yourself that probably 90-95% of the people on this thread vote either NDP or Liberal.

Your position is becoming an increasingly lonely place.

Yep, and they also can actually prod people into action who would normally not have cared either way. From now on I'm going to pay more attention in the various places where I'm a taxpayer and make sure I register my opposition any time namechangings and removals whenever it becomes a threat.

"Too much is the enemy of good", do you guys say that? (or something similar...?)

Ben Shapiro? It doesn't really help to counteract the insanity on the far left with a dose of insanity from the far right.

Let me add my voice to the chorus of disagreement about this. It's obvious that this movement in Canada is inspired by the move to pull down statues celebrating Confederate generals in the U.S. south, which I do fully agree with.

But Sir John A and General Lee clearly represent two very, very different things. The Civil War was entirely about protecting the right to own black people at a time when the consensus in the West had already declared slavery to be wrong (this isn't a frivolous point--not only is Egypt not pulling down ancient statues of slave-owning rulers, they're restoring them, and Christians give a pass to a deity who explicitly endorsed slavery, because while he may be omniscient and eternal, it was 2000 years ago, so...), and those statues were put up in the 20th century as part of the campaign of terror inflicted on former slaves. Sir John A's sins are despicable from a modern perspective, but telling the House of Commons that Chinese-origin people shouldn't have the vote due to fears of encroachment on the British racial and cultural traditions in Canada in the 19th century is not the same class of thing as owning people.

Both are dehumanizing and racist. But in the 19th century no nations were comfortable with large movements of people from comparatively more foreign cultures into their midst. I mean, the Irish and Italians had it bad enough moving here and to the U.S.

A snapshot of a Google search on Sir John A Macdonald just now:

Stories like this popping up for the Star and the CBC, and those letters at that link for the Globe and Mail being against removing John A's name from schools, tends to suggest that the Ontario teachers might be backing themselves into a corner on this one.

Yep, and they also can actually prod people into action who would normally not have cared either way. From now on I'm going to pay more attention in the various places where I'm a taxpayer and make sure I register my opposition any time namechangings and removals whenever it becomes a threat.

"Too much is the enemy of good", do you guys say that? (or something similar...?)

In fairness, things change very quickly on social issues... in 1995, the thought of gay marriage would have existed for the most part on the fringes of society. Even within the NDP and Liberal parties it certainly wasn't mainstream.

A decade later it was legal, two decades later and no one really gives it any thought anymore, it's about as controversial as telecommunications regulations.

So it is possible that bkd and the people on my twitter feed constantly harping on 'settlers' could simply be out in front of public opinion on this issue.

This is a really good point.

One caveat though is that as much as some opponents of gay marriage wanted to convince us otherwise, gay marriage didn't really take anything away from those of us who aren't gay. It changed zero in my life. So it was easy to support for people like me who aren't prejudiced against gays.

The John A. Macdonald issue won't do anything to me either, but changing the societal dynamic between "settlers/guests" and another group who are allegedly more "legitimate residents" is a whole new ballgame - potentially at least.

Yep, and they also can actually prod people into action who would normally not have cared either way. From now on I'm going to pay more attention in the various places where I'm a taxpayer and make sure I register my opposition any time namechangings and removals whenever it becomes a threat.

"Too much is the enemy of good", do you guys say that? (or something similar...?)

Best (or perfect) is the enemy of good. Because even the anglosphere reads Voltaire.

Ben Shapiro? It doesn't really help to counteract the insanity on the far left with a dose of insanity from the far right.

Taking individual responsibility and not wanting government to act as big brother is insanity? Hey, I don't agree with everything he says, especially his views on healthcare and gun control, I'm too good a Canadian for that, but like the Ten Commandments as an example for living a decent life, it's a good place to start.

In fairness, things change very quickly on social issues... in 1995, the thought of gay marriage would have existed for the most part on the fringes of society. Even within the NDP and Liberal parties it certainly wasn't mainstream.

A decade later it was legal, two decades later and no one really gives it any thought anymore, it's about as controversial as telecommunications regulations.

So it is possible that bkd and the people on my twitter feed constantly harping on 'settlers' could simply be out in front of public opinion on this issue.

Huge difference though: what the gay community ultimately wanted was capped at having the same rights as everyone else. It didn't take much sacrifice by anyone else (at that point) for them to be granted all of it.

The analogy with gays would be if the natives right now demanded abolition of their status and of the reserves so that they could turn into ordinary Canadians like everyone else. I'm sure they'd obtain that at least as easily as gays did.

One caveat though is that as much as some opponents of gay marriage wanted to convince us otherwise, gay marriage didn't really take anything away from those of us who aren't gay. It changed zero in my life. So it was easy to support for people like me who aren't prejudiced against gays.

Amen, conversely, some people want to believe that people are conniving against them when most people don't give a shit. The majority of folks just want to be left in peace to live their lives.

Taking individual responsibility and not wanting government to act as big brother is insanity? Hey, I don't agree with everything he says, especially his views on healthcare and gun control, I'm too good a Canadian for that, but like the Ten Commandments as an example for living a decent life, it's a good place to start.

As espoused by rightwing wealthy Americans, I wouldn't call it insanity, but I would say that it has only moderate relevance and little resonance in Canada.

The John A. Macdonald issue won't do anything to me either, but changing the societal dynamic between "settlers/guests" and another group who are allegedly more "legitimate residents" is a whole new ballgame - potentially at least.

True. It's interesting how we went from being an explicitly racist society to one with strong ideals of equality (which reached its high water mark with the Charter and subsequent jurisprudence), to one where we're now once again seriously engaging with the idea that some groups are, as you say, more "legitimate residents".

One caveat though is that as much as some opponents of gay marriage wanted to convince us otherwise, gay marriage didn't really take anything away from those of us who aren't gay. It changed zero in my life. So it was easy to support for people like me who aren't prejudiced against gays.

The John A. Macdonald issue won't do anything to me either, but changing the societal dynamic between "settlers/guests" and another group who are allegedly more "legitimate residents" is a whole new ballgame - potentially at least.

I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine but I see we have a somewhat similar view of the analogy.

Huge difference though: what the gay community ultimately wanted was capped at having the same rights as everyone else. It didn't take much sacrifice by anyone else (at that point) for them to be granted all of it.

The analogy with gays would be if the natives right now demanded abolition of their status and of the reserves so that they could turn into ordinary Canadians like everyone else. I'm sure they'd obtain that at least as easily as gays did.

I wasn't saying that the facts of that situation were precisely analogous, but rather I was using it as an example to point out that a social consensus (and that's what it was... you probably would have had a hard time finding anyone outside the gay activist community who vocally supported gay marriage not even 25 years ago) can turn around pretty quickly.

Taking individual responsibility and not wanting government to act as big brother is insanity? Hey, I don't agree with everything he says, especially his views on healthcare and gun control, I'm too good a Canadian for that, but like the Ten Commandments as an example for living a decent life, it's a good place to start.

He's a hardwired right-wing ideologue with as idiotic an "understanding" of the issues as the social justice warriors he rails against. And the Ten Commandments are most definitely and unequivocally not an example for "decent living"--they're mostly the ravings of a jealous deity aside from the one or two useful rules that were/are universal in socio-cultural groupings anyway.